We Didn't Do It, But We Can Do Something About It

Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) provides us with a bit of humor for the night.  As reported by Alec McGillis of washingtonpost.com, Governor Palin stated in the most recently aired part of her interview with Katie Couric: 

"I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is, it's real, we need to do something about it."

Alright, so Palin is saying that the world's weather patterns are cyclical, which would mean that our current warming/cooling/whatever we're in right now may not be attributable to man's activities.  Fine, that's her opinion.  But then to say that we need to do something about it begs the question: why must we do something about a phenomenon that we are not responsible for?  It's almost like claiming that although we may not be responsible for leaves falling off of trees in autumn, it's a real thing, so we have to do something about it.  Even if the leaves falling would cause the calamitous end of humanity, if you can't stop it, what's the point?

You can be a firm believer in man's complete responsibility for the gradual increase in world temperatures since the Industrial Revolution and thus believe that we need to act to stop greenhouse gas emissions to save our planet.  But you can't believe that we didn't do it and can't affect the weather and then say we have to stop the rain (although China says they can!)

Mission Statement

This blog is not intended to be a medium that simply furthers partisan ideas on either side of the political spectrum, rather we at WASP Blog will try to take a more common-sense approach to issues instead of the typical bitter partisanship of media punditry circulating across the political spectrum today.  While at times this blog will favor one argument over another on the issue at hand, such preference will only be shown when the author believes it is in the best interest of the nation, not to advance biased rhetoric.  All posts will back up assertions and opinions with citations and practical/factual arguments, and are designed not to "spin" issues, rather they are designed to present issues and advocate the position for which the known facts seem to indicate is the better position.  The term "WASP" effectively encapsulates this idea:  When America Suffers from Politics means that America suffers at the hand of partisan politics instead of benefitting from a practical examination of individual issues.  We at WASP Blog hope to bring attention back to the issues, first and foremost.

Note: Discussion will be kept as free as possible, but all comments deemed inappropriate will be removed.

Bailout, Rescue, Whatever You Call It

Get it done.  Although many economists and Republicans and Democrats alike have shown hesitance over the Bush Administration's proposal for an economic rescue/bailout plan, one thing is clear: if Congress doesn't do something, the country is looking at a severe economic crisis.  

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of economists and politicians who think the idea of taxpayers rescuing the fools on Wall Street is stupid or wrong.  I don't like it either, and in a perfect world we wouldn't have this issue.  I am saying that this is not a perfect world, and Wall Street's reaction to the failure of the plan to pass through the House of Representatives yesterday was a precipitous drop in the stock markets.  Now, I only know about the Great Depression from what I've been told in history books, but if memory serves me right, in 1929 the Hoover Administration didn't step in to "bail out" the economy, and a crisis ensued--specifically, the stock market crashed.  So if we repeat that mistake, we could be looking at another major depression, even with tools like the FDIC and others at our disposal.  Even if the rescue/bailout plan is no more than a bandage on a much more severe problem, at least we can delay an economic downturn until we can straighten out the problems underlying the crisis at hand, or at very worst, say that "at least we tried."

As for Congress, I can only hope that concerns about being reelected and popular opinion aren't the driving force behind their rejection of the bailout/rescue bill.  If congressmen/women are only going to vote for something based on opinion polls of their constituents, what's the point of a representative democracy?  We might as well run the country by plebiscite (As an aside, I can only imagine that if the economy does crash, voters won't be sympathetic to the idea that their representatives only had their best interests in mind when voting down the proposal).

It's up to Congress to put their partisan bickering aside (see: Speaker Nancy Pelosi's awful speech before the vote and Rep. John Boehner's ridiculous assertion that her speech caused House Republicans to change their votes) and move forward with some remake of the current plan to save our financial markets.  Whether it is more or less partisan is not as important that something be done when Congress reconvenes on Thursday.